Enough about what happened 30+ years ago...

[bsnyder]

Now that the mainstream press is being forced to take on that issue, let's turn our attention to more important matters.

John Kerry's record in the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Attendance records show he was absent for almost 75% of the meetings.

Kerry points out that most meetings of the Intelligence Committee are closed and attendance records of those meetings aren't public, hinting that his attendance might have been better at the non-public proceedings. But Kerry could ask that his attendance records be made public, and hasn't.


In their eagerness to dismiss the Bush ad's charges, Kerry campaign aides claimed that the senator had been vice chairman of the intelligence committee, which isn't true. In fact, former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska was vice chairman of the panel for several years while Kerry was a more junior member of the panel. John Kerry left the committee in January 2001. He never served as vice chairman, a committee spokesman confirmed to us.

The erroneous claim appeared in several places on the Kerry website, one dating back to January, 2004, and another in a posting Aug. 13 to rebut the Bush ad. It said, "Kerry is an Experienced Leader in the Intelligence Field – John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for eight years and is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee."Kerry senior adviser Tad Devine told Fox News, which first reported the discrepancy, that the campaign would be "happy to correct the record" if needed:

Devine: I'll have to check with the issues people. It was my understanding he was. But if that's, you know -- but if that's not a factual case, I'm sure we will be happy to correct the record.

Two days later the erroneous claim was still appearing on the Kerry website, however. On Aug. 17 The Associated Press quoted campaign spokesman Michael Meehan conceding the error, adding: "John Kerry, Bob Kerrey -- similar names."

 

[jennyanydots]

link? source?

 

[bsnyder]

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

 

[bsnyder]

A little bit about FactCheck:

Our Mission

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by an endowment from the Annenberg Foundation.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Actually, bsnyder, I addressed this before, and gave kudos to the Bush campaign for launching a very well-planned attack ad. Basically, there is no way Kerry will be able to refute it; Kerry's attendance at the closed hearings can't be released without the approval of both the chair and vice-chair, and the chair is firmly in the Bush camp. My guess is a refusal is what would happen, most likely on the basis that attendance records are too sensitive to release. I remember hearing a couple of items in a news program about this; that A. Kerry's attendance can't be released without all the attendance records being released and B. no one's attendance records at the public hearings is all that hot to begin with. At the time, I tried to find out how to discover attendance records, but ran out of time before I was able to do so. Does anyone know how one goes about it, other than reading the record of every hearing and counting who was there?

 

[bsnyder]

Unfortunately, those records are not open to the public (the closed meetings) so we have no way of knowning who attended or not.

The FactCheck website has this to say about the closed meetings:

What About the Closed Meetings?

The Kerry rebuttal also noted that most of the Intelligence Committee meetings are closed and attendance figures for closed meetings aren't public, which is true. But Kerry offered nothing to show that his attendance at closed meetings was better or worse than his attendance at open hearings. He also has passed up a chance to have the full record of his attendance made public.

Over the weekend, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, refused to say how often Kerry had attended closed meetings. But Roberts said Kerry could, if he wished, ask that his attendance at closed meetings be made public. Roberts spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press" Aug 15:

Q: Did he (Kerry) attend private sessions or was he not present?

Sen... Roberts: Well, I'm not going to get into whether he was there or not. Senator (Jay) Rockefeller (the Democratic Vice chairman of the committee) and I and the committee would have to agree to release the attendance records for...

Q: Well, it should be a matter of record, though, if you can...

Roberts: Well, it's in a closed hearing. . . . The easiest way out of this is for John Kerry and John Edwards to request of Senator Rockefeller and myself to release the attendance hearings; not only the public hearings, which they have rebutted, but the closed hearings. . . .
Q: Well, has he been a hard-working member?

Roberts: They should request it. They should...

Q: Because that's one of the credentials he cites in his campaign.

Roberts: Well, hard-working member is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm just saying that John Kerry and John Edwards could ask Jay and myself to release the attendance records. It is important because you have to be in attendance to learn the job.

A Kerry campaign official responded to Roberts statement by saying "there's nothing to clear up" through releasing records of closed hearings. Stephanie Cutter, communications director of the Kerry campaign, said Aug 15 on CNN's Inside Politics Sunday:

Cutter: Well, there's nothing to clear up. . . . John Kerry has had a consistent record of improving intelligence over the past 20 years. He joined with many Republicans, including one of the chairs of the Republican campaign, Arlen Specter, to improve intelligence in a post-Cold War era. So this is -- this is just another distorted attack by George Bush, because he can't defend his own record.

As of 6:30pm Aug. 17 the Kerry campaign had made no request of the Senate Intelligence Committee to release records of the closed meetings, a committee spokesman told FactCheck.org.

Where did jennyanydots go? I thought for sure she'd want to give an opinion about this!

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Actually, bsnyder, I addressed this before, and gave kudos to the Bush campaign for launching a very well-planned attack ad. Basically, there is no way Kerry will be able to refute it; Kerry's attendance at the closed hearings can't be released without the approval of both the chair and vice-chair, and the chair is firmly in the Bush camp. My guess is a refusal is what would happen, most likely on the basis that attendance records are too sensitive to release. I remember hearing a couple of items in a news program about this; that A. Kerry's attendance can't be released without all the attendance records being released and B. no one's attendance records at the public hearings is all that hot to begin with. At the time, I tried to find out how to discover attendance records, but ran out of time before I was able to do so. Does anyone know how one goes about it, other than reading the record of every hearing and counting who was there?

And I didn't see you address this before, so I'm sorry if this post is redundant in any way. I've been out of town quite a bit lately, and have missed a lot of the political debates here.

I guess it could be categorized as an attack ad, but at least it's about an important and timely subject.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Actually, bsnyder, I addressed this before, and gave kudos to the Bush campaign for launching a very well-planned attack ad. Basically, there is no way Kerry will be able to refute it; Kerry's attendance at the closed hearings can't be released without the approval of both the chair and vice-chair, and the chair is firmly in the Bush camp. My guess is a refusal is what would happen, most likely on the basis that attendance records are too sensitive to release. I remember hearing a couple of items in a news program about this; that A. Kerry's attendance can't be released without all the attendance records being released and B. no one's attendance records at the public hearings is all that hot to begin with. At the time, I tried to find out how to discover attendance records, but ran out of time before I was able to do so. Does anyone know how one goes about it, other than reading the record of every hearing and counting who was there?

This is an interesting comment you've made. You're concern seems to me more with the idea that you feel this was a well planned attack by the Bush camp rather than the public attendence record itself. Roberts is quoted as saying Kerry will have to ask for those records to be released. You seem to take it one step further and imply that because the chair is Republican, they could make things look bad for Kerry by refusing to release those records.

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[jennyanydots]

so, in other words, Bush has attacked Kerry on a point that Kerry can't legally refute without violating the sanctity of closed door hearings.

I gues all those images of Bush playing golf and riding around Crawford on his horse, taking more vacation than any othe rpresident, must be making an impression.

nice.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
so, in other words, Bush has attacked Kerry on a point that Kerry can't legally refute without violating the sanctity of closed door hearings.

I guess all those images of Bush playing golf and riding around Crawford on his horse, taking more vacation than any other president, must be making an impression.

nice.

Huh?

Sanctity? Interesting choice in that word. I don't think we need to know what went on in those closed door meetings so I fail to see your point in using it.

And no, Bush didn't attack Kerry. Kerry's record speaks for itself. How is pointing out (imo, a dismal attendance record) something that is true and public (not that many in the public would know this before now) record an attack? Don't you care that he missed so many public meetings? Don't you want to know how many closed meeting he attended? Don't you think it shows what kind of job he was doing as US Senator?

What does Bush's vacationing have to do with Kerry's Intelligence meetings?

Nothing because Bush can pretty much run the country from anywhere. And this has been pointed out earlier that many Presidents in the past have been able to do their job from remote locations.

Do you believe that Bush ever missed a meeting because he was on "vacation"?

And answer this, do you really think that Bush is ever on real vacation? Like the kind that you and I take where someone else fills in for us while we're out? Heck, the POTUS can't even undergo surgery that requires anesthesia without transferring power to the VP.

 

[mudhen]

Does being absent mean physically not present, or being
at the meeting but just not speaking on the record??

I've heard (right or wrong) that those who speak on the
record are the only ones recorded as "present". Maybe
I misinterrpreted what I heard on TV??

But I say release the attendance, that way we'll know
for sure, as well as how many Republicans were also
absent from these meetings.

While we're "cleaning the air" , so to speak, let's have Cheney
release the attendance for those who were at the secret meetings shaping our nation's energy policy.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Yes, Elwood, you read my post correctly. Regarding the first point, do we know comparitively how his attendance at the public meetings stands up? If his attendance is in line with a majority of the other senator's attendance at their public committee meetings, then no, I don't think it is much of an issue. The program I heard (and I *think* it was on Fox News, but I honestly don't remember--it was kind of a drive-by viewing while getting my kids ready for football practice) stated that attendance at public committee meetings is considered optional at best by senators, and many will walk in to be counted, and then walk out before any business takes place, and that this was in part because everyone got the minutes anyway, and caught up on them at that point. Again, it was in regards to public hearings, not closed hearings.

And again, yes, I think it was a very well constructed attack ad, for the reasons stated--in the interview with Roberts posted here, it *appears* that he's saying that it isn't just attendance that's revealed, it's the entire record that would be released, although that isn't clear--at times it sounds like he's speaking specifically of attendance and at others, it seems like it is the general record. And although he's said "They can ask for the records to be released", he has NOT said, "I'd be happy to release those records." My guess is that, for whatever reason, such a request would be denied--which will leave a murky view of Kerry's attendance overall.

 

[Elwood Blues]

BK, if the majority of the Senate has similar attendance records, then it's no big deal other than the fact of why do so many miss (or skip if it's true they show up to be counted and leave) meetings? This brings up the question of just what are they doing in Washington if they miss(skip) meetings.


IMO unless someone can verify that the majority of Senate has similar attendance records I will have to take what's been stated at face value and make a judgment accordingly.

And it's just your opinion when you state by saying that the end result may be that Roberts (in a r/w conspiracy) will deny the request.

One step at a time please. Kerry has to ask first. No sense jumping the gun unless you have a crystal ball.

 

[MJames41]

mudhen,

Parlimentary rules would require all who attend to be marked as present, not just those who speak.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

I agree on the first point, Elwood; that's why I'd like to know that. I wish I knew how to find it out. The commercial I saw (they're airing it in my area--the benefits of a swing state, I guess, is at least I know of the ads talked about in the news) didn't compare his record to anyone else's, so I just don't know. All I have to go on right now is that news snippet I saw. The research I tried to do at the senate.gov site was unfruitful. As to what they're doing if they aren't in the meetings....no clue. Although I know I keep my senator (at least, her staff) busy with emails. LOL

Regarding the second, no crystal ball....just historical context (seen enough dirty political tricks in my day to suspect that would happen) and gut instinct there.

 

[mudhen]

Thanks MJ, it must've been something else they were screaming
about on TV that had to with speaking vs. non-speaking.

 

[peachgirl]

Enough about what happened 30+ years ago... Now that the mainstream press is being forced to take on that issue, let's turn our attention to more important matters.

Disingenuous to say the least..

Actually, I'm seeing much more press attention on the veterans who are coming out to dispute the SBVT and Bush's connections to them than to the lies they were putting out. How odd that you would want to just let the bias press get away with that.

The truth is, the only reason you want to move on to other Kerry attacks is that the last one isn't going to stick. The SBVT story is just as important now that it's being disproven as it was when the smear campaign was working.

These charges were leveled, they're being proven a lie and evidence is still coming out against the SBVT and it's connection to Bush.

So, no, let's don't sweep this latest smear campaign of Bush's aside like we did with McCain. I'm just as interested in this story now that it's beginning to turn against Bush as you were when it first broke and Kerry was on the receiving end.

I want it to get as much attention as it's torn apart as it did when the right was reveling in tearing Kerry apart.

This hit and run tactic that the Republicans have refined isn't going to work this time.

Nice try though.

<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>